(Newser)
–
Technology is great, except when you're trying to get someone convicted for murder and you have your DNA expert testify via Skype, which denies the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses in court, which in turn gets the defendant (who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison) a new trial. That's what happened in the case of Truett Thomas, an Albuquerque man accused of murdering Guadalupe Ashford and leaving her body behind a parking lot trash can in 2010, Ars Technica reports. Police found blood on a paver stone at the scene that was believed to be the murder weapon, the Albuquerque Journal reports; it matched Thomas' blood, but in the two years between Thomas' arrest and the start of his trial, the state's forensic analyst—the person who originally tested the crime scene blood—moved out of New Mexico.

Thomas' defense lawyer originally didn't argue with allowing the expert to testify via a two-way Skype call, though he said he found it "weird," so prosecutors didn't subpoena him to appear in person. As the trial approached, Thomas' attorney decided he didn't like the Skype idea after all, but because he hadn't initially fought the decision, the judge allowed it to proceed. Thomas was convicted of murder and kidnapping, but in a June 20 ruling the New Mexico Supreme Court tossed the kidnapping charge (the court says the evidence doesn't support it) and reversed the murder conviction, ordering a new trial. The expert witness's "involvement in the case was significant," the court ruled, and "the DNA profiles were offered as the sole evidence that implicated Defendant in this crime," clearly influencing the verdict. Therefore, "face-to-face confrontation" should have happened, per Thomas' constitutional rights. (A talkative parrot may factor into this murder trial.)

After having served as a juror, I would be skeptical of Skype testimonies. I want the witness in the box live. I want to see their body language. Their eyes. I want to see them under the glare of all the ceremony and atmosphere. I want to see the smallest twitch.

John_B

Jun 25, 2016 9:50 AM CDT

A conference call with the accuser where you are allowed to cross examine IS facing the accuser. That's funny modern day morons would miss interpret 'face' your accuser as meaning you are supposed to be in the same room with the accuser and pressing your live 'face' up against theirs or some idiocy? Maybe the defendant could get off if the prosecution or witnesses WERE live in the court room and all testimony was heard and transcribed accurately but the accused was sitting with his SIDE TO THE PROSECUTION. What do these morons think the term 'face' means in face your accuser.

Steven Alexander

Jun 25, 2016 8:58 AM CDT

News flash; Every MAN ever murdered by his wife or girlfriend; who later simply accuses him of 'past abuse' has been denied his 6th Amendment rights - he is dead and cannot confront his accuser. Cherry picking The United States Constitution while denying men equal protection under the law for over 50 years is so typical of those that have an agenda to push. Men better wake up; you're being gamed. Google "Mary Winkler." Case closed.